FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 13 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIKHS FOR JUSTICE, INC., No. 15-17441
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02442-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 11, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SANDS, Senior District
Judge.***
1. The district court properly dismissed Sikhs for Justice, Inc.’s (SFJ)
discrimination claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable W. Louis Sands, Senior United States District Judge
for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides interactive computer service
providers immunity from civil liability when the claim is premised upon the
provider’s role as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (c)(2). “This grant of
immunity applies only if the interactive computer service provider is not also an
‘information content provider,’ which is defined as someone who is ‘responsible,
in whole or in part, for the creation or development of’ the offending content.”
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d
1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3)).
Here, it is undisputed that Facebook is an interactive computer service
provider. SFJ seeks to hold Facebook liable as a publisher for hosting, and later
blocking, SFJ’s online content. See Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1103
(9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Sept. 28, 2009) (“removing content is something
publishers do”). But SFJ, not Facebook, is the party solely responsible for creating
and developing the content on SFJ’s webpage. As such, Facebook cannot be
deemed an “information content provider,” and it is therefore entitled to the
immunity conferred under § 230. Moreover, we have found no authority, and SFJ
fails to cite any authority, holding that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
provides an exception to the immunity afforded to Facebook under the CDA.
Page 3 of 3
Because SFJ’s Title II claim is barred by the CDA, granting SFJ leave to
amend its complaint would have been futile. As a result, the district court properly
dismissed SFJ’s Title II claim with prejudice.
2. The district court properly dismissed SFJ’s pendent state law claims. The
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over these remaining state law claims after it dismissed SFJ’s sole claim under
federal law.
AFFIRMED.